Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] lockdep: spin_lock_nest_lock()

[Dave Jones]

On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 04:32:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
 > On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 07:26 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
 > > > No more than 48 locks (mutexes, rwlocks, spinlock, RCU, everything
 > >  > covered by lockdep) held by any one code-path; including nested
 > >  > interrupt contexts.
 > > 
 > > Does that mean that something like the new mm_take_all_locks() operation
 > > is going to explode if someone tries to use it with lockdep on?
 > 
 > Gah - yes, clearly nobody tried this.. :-/
 > 
 > Just looking at the code it will not only run into this limit, but it
 > would warn about recursion on the second file/anon vma due to utter lack
 > of annotation.
 > 
 > Why are people still developing without lockdep?

More puzzling, is why hasn't this triggered in the Fedora rawhide kernels,
which do have lockdep enabled.

	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/